[j2Y6Ysmb]

You can't have an opinion on what an 'ethnic Turk' is. It is a definition. It's like arguing that 'my opinion is that soldier means someone who cooks food in restaurants'. It's not up for debate, it is a definition. 'Ethnic Turk' is a term defined by reliable sources such as the Encyclopedia Britannica.

What you don't understand is I'm not arguing my opinion, I'm arguing in favour of a clear cut, objective definition.



This can be argued, though it does not alter the meaning of 'ethnic Turk'.
What do you mean I cannot have an opinion? Of course i can and i do.

Ethnicity can be defined in many different ways.

According to Hobsbawm and Ranger (1983), Seidner,(1982), Ethnicity, Language, and Power from a Psycholinguistic Perspective, pp. 2-3, and Smith 1987 pp.21-22.

a group of people whose members identify with each other, through a common heritage, often consisting of a common language, a common culture (often including a shared religion) and an ideology that stresses common ancestry or endogamy.

Hello, do you think that Turkish people of Armenian/Greek/Kurdish descent believe there ancestor is a wolf? That they came from the steppes, that they are a part of the Huns... etc etc...

So, now according to your Encyclopeda Brittanica

Turkic peoples, any of various peoples whose members speak languages belonging to the Turkic subfamily of the Altaic family of languages. They are historically and linguistically connected with the T’u-chüeh, the name given by the Chinese to the nomadic people who in the 6th century ad founded an empire stretching from Mongolia and the northern frontier of China to the Black Sea. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/...Turkic-peoples

I fail to see how Bosnians, Kurds, Armenians, Greeks, etc etc have a Historic and Linguistic connection to the T’u-chüeh.
I wasn't going to use your encyclopedia Brittanica definiation, since I feel my own opinion is sufficient, but since you are hellbent on their definition, please do explain the above.


Please define 'historical linguistic Turkic association'. Are you implying that language is passed on through blood? No I am not. I mean, that the persons ancestors would have come from a family that spoke a Turkic language and has ancestors from the steppes.

Ottoman was structurally a Turkish language, just with many more influences. Turkish as spoken in Turkey is relatively new in its final form, but then so is modern English, are you implying that just because ethnic English people spoke a different form of English prior to this form that they cannot be considered 'ethnic English'? Ottoman Turkish, called simply Osmanlica in Turkish, gradually absorbed a great many Arabic and Persian words and even grammatical forms and was written in Arabic script.
Ottoman Turkish today cannot be understood by the modern Turkish people of Turkey. It was a whole new language.
The whole reason we have new modern Turkish, is because Ataturk wanted to purge out all the arabic and persian words and somehow go back to the Pre ottoman times Turkish, since the father of Modern Turkish people didn't accept Ottoman as a Turkish language, I think you will find you are mistaken.


So you believe the Encyclopedia Britannica is mistaken? Please explain why. The Encyclopedia Brittanica offers the same description:
They are historically and linguistically connected with the T’u-chüeh,



That's not what I'm describing at all. The Congolese would have to be the ruling class of China who had introduced their language and culture over a stretch of 1000 years for what I'm saying to be anything similar. Every person who has only a Turkish identity in Turkey and is native to Anatolia is an ethnic Turk. This is a definition, it is not based on opinion. Please share the source of the definition in bold.
As far as I am concerned, Turks are NOT native to Anatolia. The people of Anatolia where in themselves a mix of other peoples.
Turks are native to central asia.


Let me give you a better example of what I'm arguing. I'm arguing that the biological descendant of a Viking in Yorkshire is considered ethnic English regardless of his ancestry. What you're arguing would imply that every single person in the world needs to take a genetic test and turn out to be overwhelmingly part of one ethnicity to consider themselves 'ethnic' anything. That is unfeasible and contradicting of the term 'ethnic'. Not really, because a person from Yorkshire would have more than 80 years of history to identify his "Englishness"




They are not 'ethnic Turks', they are ethnic Uygurs, ethnic Tatars or ethnic Ozbeks. The only nationality that refer to themselves as 'Turks' is that of the Republic of Turkey. Every person belonging to the majority of that country is an ethnic Turk by definition. According to your Encyclopedia Britannica they certainly are

You're still disputing the meaning of 'ethnic Turk'. Ethnic Turk is a term that does not confine ethnicity to genetic ancestry. Do you think every other country in the world is genetically homogeneous apart from Turkey? No I am not disputing, I have stated my opinion on what I think an Ethnic Turk is, thanks very much.



Well that is a wrong statement. I'm not stating opinion while you are. I'm stating clear cut definition, as stated by the Encyclopedia Britannica, you're insisting that the Encyclopedia Britannica is wrong, with no explanation as to why, while you've also admitted that you're arguing your opinion. That's all well and gravy, if of course we weren't arguing about an accepted definition of something. If this is your stance you must clearly state that you oppose the universal definition of 'ethnic Turk'. I have clarified to you that:
Article 66 of the Turkish Constitution defines a "Turk" as anyone who is "bound to the Turkish state through the bond of citizenship"; therefore, the legal use of the term "Turkish" as a citizen of Turkey is different from the ethnic definition

As far as I am concerned, legally all residents of Turkey are Turkish, however, ethnically (ancestry) they are not.


No, because I'm not saying that at all. Again you're confusing the meaning of 'ethnic Turk'. You haven't answered my question....

Do you have proof that people were speaking a Turkic language in Anatolia prior to the Central Asian Turks coming through?
Do you have any proof genetically that the native people of Anatolia were Turks?
(not that it is possible)

If you do not, how can you claim the natives of Anatolia as Turks, please explain.


No, it's you that cannot differentiate between an ethnic Albanian and an ethnic Turk of Albanian descent. Please refute what is said by the Encylopedia Britannica. There is no progress to this discussion if you cannot understand the concept we are discussing. You, can refer to the encyclopedia Britannica...
Turkic peoples, any of various peoples whose members speak languages belonging to the Turkic subfamily of the Altaic family of languages. They are historically and linguistically connected with the T’u-chüeh, the name given by the Chinese to the nomadic people who in the 6th century ad founded an empire stretching from Mongolia and the northern frontier of China to the Black Sea.
Assuming you mean someone with only a Turkish identity of Albanian descent; because he has lost his Albanian identity completely. Ethnic Turk refers to the ethnic majority of the Republic of Turkey, not to Kazakhstan. You haven't answered my question.

If an Albanian has no historic linguistic link to the Turkic language. If he has no genetic link to the Turk people (central asia) and he is only speaking Turkish since 1925 for example, how can you class him as an "ethnic Turk" Would this man not then be an "ethnic Albanian" ?

The major problem in this discussion is you refuse to acknowledge the formal meaning of ethnic Turk. If you reject the universal definition of ethnic Turk there is nothing to argue, but you're not even aware that you are arguing opinion against fact .

I have already stated what i think "ethnicity" is and it is confirmed by your own source that people should have a historic connection.

Please do answer the questions you jumped